Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hi all. I mostly lurk in this group and soak up the discussions, but I keep running into this dilemma and thought you all would have good opinions on it.

I feel like I've had a conundrum lately when it comes to starting a new series. Several series that I'd like to read have great reviews that start showing up mid- to late-series, and I wind up not reading them because I feel like I have to go all the way back to the beginning to experience it properly, but those earlier books aren't rated as highly. What do you think? Do you just jump in late in a series, or do you always start at the beginning?

I'd be interested in knowing the answer to this as well, at least in regards to fantasy.

For other genres I usually take it on a case by case basis and asks friends opinion who have read the series that interests me. Sometimes they say I have to start at the beginning and sometimes they tell me I can safely jump to book 3 or whatever.

But from what fantasy I've read (and this has been very little), it seems that most series have a large story arc and if you don't read from the beginning, you may be missing something.

I'm a completeist. I always begin at the beginning. But others feel differently. Entirely a matter of choice.

We have a whole thread on how to read a series: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...

Personally I like to read series from the beginning.

I almost never ever start any series from later books. If sequels has better rating than first books, it is generally because setting up the world and preparing readers and characters for main plot takes time. Once familiarity to the world and plot established, it's easier to like sequels. Otherwise, I feel like I barged into a room full of people who know each other well and I'm the only one who have no idea what's going on.

That happened to me with Song of Ice and Fire. I read Grossman's review, in which he called Martin the "American Tolkien", and immediately became interested. This was at the time "Feast for Crows" came out. I remember going to Borders and seeing the thick spines of the PAPERBACKS and thinking "holy shit". It took me graduating from college and another year after that to dive in and fall in love. I came into Butcher's Dresden Files late in the game too. In all cases, well worth going back and starting with book one and working my way current.

Speaking of which, I need to get going on Wheel of Time soon.

I say always start with the first book unless you can't find it for some reason.

I can't help myself, I always start at the beginning. I just hate thinking I might miss something or that perhaps the great reviews of the book in the middle might only come from all the build up in the earlier books.

There can be exceptions because there are different types of series. Some can more be classified as stand alones because they involve different characters but in the same world, so there are times you could skip ahead. Even then for me, I much rather start at the beginning.

I start at the beginning as well. I just don't want to feel that I missed out important stuff that took place in the early books that is mentioned later in the series and I don't have a clue what it is about -destroys the reading if I just jump right in the middle or end of a series.

Adrienne: yes, that's a fascinating issue with voting/rating. It also works outside series. I like to think of it as "the Bananafish Paradox" - on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, "Catcher in the Rye" has a mediocre 3.73 rating, whilst "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" has a soaring 4.29, even though, I would strongly suspect, everybody who has read both books would rate Catcher above Bananafish. But anybody who has read Bananafish is likely to already be a Catcher fan (or at least like Salinger's style) - the problem is that the readership of difficult-to-get to (in the first case because you have to read other books first, in the second simply because of obscurity) books is not random, but self-selecting, so that th harder to get to a book the more likely its readers are to be predisposed to like it.

---

On the topic: it depends on the series. Some series can be begun at any point. Some CAN be begun later on, but it's harder, and you may miss some things. Others really can't be started except at the beginning, or else you'll miss too much. So it depends on the series.

No matter what the genre, I do it on a case by case basis. I LIKE starting at the beginning. I'm another completist, but some series really don't need it. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the Conan series by REH & Modesitt's Recluse series. The former was a bunch of short stories that have been put into a series format by editors who often changed the stories to make them fit the chronology better & even created whole books to cash in.

Modesitt's series is published out of chronological order. While Lee prefers it be read in that order, it certainly isn't necessary. Yes, the way the magic & his various themes grow does work a bit better, but most books stand alone just fine.

While it's possible that in some romance or mystery series, you might read the books in any order and still understand what's going on, most fantasy series aren't structured the same way and are far more...serial. In my opinion, no matter what the series, books that take place in the same "world" should generally be read in publication order, even if they're technically not the same series, or you miss things. Fantasy series are often a single story divided into several books, which would make starting in the middle of the series extremely confusing. Even when they are separate stories, you don't get the same world-building background starting with later books than you would if you began at the beginning.

Case in point: in middle school, without doing any sort of research, I picked up a book in the middle of Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series. It was technically a stand-alone (I think it was Brightly Burning?) but I struggled to understand the nature of Heralds and Companions through half of the book and didn't fully understand all the nuances of the world until I read the first few Valdemar books.

Start at the beginning atleast publication wise or you will definetly regret it when you are in the middle and don't know what's going on. By the way which series is it you were refering to?

The big problem behind Erin's question is of course availability. If the author is heading for a 5 or more book series, you can bet that the bookshop is only stocking the last couple of offerings.

Adrienne is right about the difficulty of ratings, and I agree with her that they cannot be trusted for a series - partly in the sense that she explains, which is that those who don't like a series get filtered out early on, and only those who do, and therefore rate higher, stay on. But I also find that many series begin with a bang - lots of action, a clear line, good description; but when they settle in for the long haul things sometimes slow down a little. For example, in J V Jones' The Sword of Shadows series book 1 A Cavern of Black Ice seems to me to read easier than book 2 A Fortress of Grey Ice; but you need both to get the full flavour. Which is another argument for staring at the beginning. If you began The Sword of Shadows with A Fortress of Grey Ice you might find it less attractive ...

That completely depends on the series!

Xanth, Discworld, most Robert Aspirin, do NOT need to be read in any particular order. I only read the Discworlds that look interesting to me, and pick up old Xanth as I find them.

Other books like ASIOF you absolutely would have to read all of them. None of the characters would mean anything to you if you started on Book Three, even if, in my opinion, its the best of the five.


I try and rate books on an individual basis in a series, but my love for the series still permeates that rating.

Finding a series this way is like finding gold to me. It's a great day when I stumble upon a highly rated series that I haven't read before. I mentioned in another thread that I tend to stop reading series if I have to wait years between books as I tend to forget what they are about and don't want to re-read the earlier ones. It's one of the primary things I like about this site. I keep finding things I wouldn't have otherwise.

Mojo wrote: "Finding a series this way is like finding gold to me. It's a great day when I stumble upon a highly rated series that I haven't read before. I mentioned in another thread that I tend to stop readin..."

Mojo, does that mean you haven't kept up with Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series? I'm not sure I could stay away from the series when a new book drops, eve it means waiting a long time for the next.

I usually read the first books in a series, always. There are very few series where I have started in the middle...

And like Mojo I usually do not start an incomplete series.

Well then Mrsjoseph you and Mojo are missing out on some good books.

I always start in the beginning. Even if the first book isn't as great, if I know something is better is coming, I can still enjoy it, the world building, et cetera. It's rare that a first book in a later good series is truly terrible.

I have no issue starting incomplete series. Although I love a good solid mega-plot arc, the journey is fine, too. I mean I got tired of Martin's series after the fourth book (haven't touched the fifth), but I really enjoyed the first few, so I don't particularly feel like it was a waste of time or anything.

Mach wrote: "Well then Mrsjoseph you and Mojo are missing out on some good books."

I'm ok with that. :D It keeps my frustration levels down. Nothing riles me up like that wait. Unlike other fantasy readers, I don't get down with the multi-year waits. GRRM? Hate him.

I didn't realize series usually ended. I thought they just fizzled away, usually after milking all they could from the subject matter & going to great, often ridiculous lengths, to find fresh material. I usually lose interest in them way before then.

Jim wrote: "I didn't realize series usually ended. I thought they just fizzled away, usually after milking all they could from the subject matter & going to great, often ridiculous lengths, to find fresh mate..."

Some do. Very few authors know how to spin out a series properly.

I have got to hand it to Butcher with the Dresden Files and Andre Norton with Witch WOrld.

They're the finest kind, MrsJ. I think Modesitt is doing well with the Recluse series too, but I've been very disappointed over the years by so many: Anthony's Xanth & Blue Adept, Herbert's Dune, Eddings Mallorean & Tamuli, Dickson's Dragon & Dorsai, just to name a few off the top of my head. IOW, I can name a lot more where I disliked where the series went than the than ones that I thought kept going strong.

I'm not trying to pick on authors in general for the difficulty of a series. I'm sure it's a lot harder continuing one, especially at the high level some started at, rather than wrapping it up. Since they're in the business to make money & I'm sure the publishers are waving it under their noses, I don't blame them a bit. I just don't like reading all too often & won't.

I don't think I've tried Modesitt's Recluse series. I started with The Soprano Sorceress and just got hung up in that series. Which I never finished...

I thought the first book of the Soprano Sorceress series was pretty good, but didn't like the rest. Recluse is different, though. It's his best written series, IMO. It covers a huge span of time so the main character changes in almost every book, especially if you read them in published order, the way Lee suggests, which isn't chronological. The magic system & other themes grow best that way.

It's also really interesting how books separated by centuries in time will refer to other events, people & places in the past. Then you'll read about them & find how time has distorted the 'real' story. Place names are corrupted, the way events worked out lends itself to misinterpretation by later generations, & real people didn't win as easily or completely as the legends make it seem.

The Corean Chronicles are another good fantasy series of his. My wife & daughter both like Modesitt's fantasy, but they don't care much for his SF books. I like most of both, as does my son. I don't think he's written a 5 star book, but most are at least 3 stars & a few are definitely worthy of 4.

I'll start at the beginning - but I do agree that it's really up to each persons choice. Definitely no absolute answer because all that really matters is what the book does for you, at that point in time that you read it.

I especially love coming into a series after a good deal of the books have been written. This way, I don't have long waits for the next book. I love being able to read them one after another. I do this with the few shows on TV that I watch also. I don't like my entertainment doled out to me, if I can get it, I like the whole story all at once (another reason I watch so little weekly TV programming) and then I move on.

Jim wrote: "I thought the first book of the Soprano Sorceress series was pretty good, but didn't like the rest. Recluse is different, though. It's his best written series, IMO. It covers a huge span of time..."

I totally agree about the 1sts book, Jim. It was pretty darn good. The second just...petered out for me and then I never picked up the 3rd (well I own it but I never cracked it open). Then I found out there was a forth! Ack!

Christina wrote: "I'll start at the beginning - but I do agree that it's really up to each persons choice. Definitely no absolute answer because all that really matters is what the book does for you, at that point ..."

I don't do a lot of weekly TV watching...except for the HGTV shows. I eat them up.

What's HGTV?

Jim wrote: "What's HGTV?"

LOL, House and Garden TV.

Yeah, one doesn't exactly to concern themselves with continuity or getting all in at once with shows like House Hunters International (strangely addicting) :)

"I missed the season finale about them buying that house on Malta, so I totally can't follow what their real estate agent is saying about the rural housing market in Estonia!"

Thanks. My daughter watches HGTV a lot, she says. She loves remodeling shows & puts them on when here. I didn't know that's what station it was. I did it too long for a living to have much interest, though. Like working on my home computers now or the cobbler making shoes for his kids.
;-)

I'm a completeist too, I guess. I can't imagine jumping into the middle of a series. That said, I have noticed that I rate series differently. I tend to think about the whole series, pick out the one or two books I loved, and give them the highest rating. From there, the other books in the series must be rated lower, or those "Favorites" won't stand out, so whether or not I also "love" book 2, I don't tend to rate it as highly as book 1.

Remember, though, ratings are subjective. You may love the first book for the same reasons that I preferred the second book. I think if a series looks interesting you should read it! And, if you're going to read a series, you should start at the beginning.

That comment was very "if you give a mouse a cookie". :) Obviously this is only my opinion, and I've been wrong before. Once or twice.

Jeremy wrote: "Yeah, one doesn't exactly to concern themselves with continuity or getting all in at once with shows like House Hunters International (strangely addicting) :)

"I missed the season finale about the..."

Exactly!

I can't stand to start in the middle of a series or worse, discover that I have done. I don't even like to start in the middle of an author's career and prefer to read an author in publication order. This said, there have been many exceptions.